TexasCHLforum.com

jbarn wrote:

WildBill wrote:

jbarn wrote:

WildBill wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:It could be Out of State LEOS carrying under LEOSA. They carry under the CHL laws when out of state but most do not have their state's version of a CHL.

It's a data error or it's got to be something else. That's the best I've heard so far!

I just didn't think there would be that many arrests of out of state LEOs.

It is not out of state LEO's.

You seem to know everything that it isn't.

Don't keep us in suspense.

What is it?

The only way I can see a NON CHL holder being convicted of 46.035 would be an out of state person with an out of state license. The column on the form is, I believe, for Texas CHL holders only. A person out of state with an out of state license is not the holder of a Texas CHL; therefore, a conviction under 46.035 cannot go under the CHL column.

Make sense?

I also say it is not out of state LEOs because even before LEOSA, out of state LEO's were not messed with in Texas for carrying.

Jaguar wrote:Maybe only 10 of those had a Texas CHL, the other 21 were out of state?

Just a wild guess.

jbarn wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:

WildBill wrote:A Level III Texas Security Officer would have a license to carry, but not a CHL.

Yeah, but I don't believe that 46.035 applies to the them without a CHL. 46.035 specifically references Subchapter H, Chapter 411 Government Code which is only for CHL's. And 46.035(e) references security officers, but says 'A license holder..', so only applies to :

(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the security officer's employment, the security officer violates a provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

You are correct, but the statistical summary doesn't list the section of the law they were convicted. Unless I missed it. When you are summarizing data you sometimes add similar things together.
In fact I did that today while working on some excel files.

At any rate, I am still waiting for the truth.

A security officer who also holds a CHL cannot carry concealed while on duty. I believe that us that 46.035(3) references. It could be possible for a guard to be caught on duty with a concealed handgun and be charged with a violation of 46.035.

Keith B wrote:

WildBill wrote:A Level III Texas Security Officer would have a license to carry, but not a CHL.

Yeah, but I don't believe that 46.035 applies to the them without a CHL. 46.035 specifically references Subchapter H, Chapter 411 Government Code which is only for CHL's. And 46.035(e) references security officers, but says 'A license holder..', so only applies to :

(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the security officer's employment, the security officer violates a provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

jbarn wrote:

WildBill wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:It could be Out of State LEOS carrying under LEOSA. They carry under the CHL laws when out of state but most do not have their state's version of a CHL.

It's a data error or it's got to be something else. That's the best I've heard so far!

I just didn't think there would be that many arrests of out of state LEOs.

It is not out of state LEO's.

gringo pistolero wrote:I'm surprised nobody has been able to get a straight answer from DPS. It shouldn't violate the aggregation rule to reveal how they're aggregating.

G.A. Heath wrote:It could be Out of State LEOS carrying under LEOSA. They carry under the CHL laws when out of state but most do not have their state's version of a CHL.

jbarn wrote:

apostate wrote:Plea bargains would be my bet.

??? How? What could you plea from TO that?